JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Durga Prasad Srivastava, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jokhan Prasad, for respondent-3. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent-2) dated 20.11.2009 and Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1) dated 8.8.2013, passed in the proceeding, arising under section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The dispute relates to the land recorded in chak 293 of village Bihara tappa Nawai, tahsil Harraiya, district Basti, which was recorded in the name of Ram Milan son of Ganga Deen. Ram Milan died in the year 1978. Smt. Rajpati filed an application under section 12 of the Act, on 7.6.1978 for mutation of her name as widow of Ram Milan. Thereafter, Bhagauti and Girdhari filed an application under section 12 of the Act on 8.6.1978 for mutation of their names, as the heirs being real brother of Ram Milan and denied Smt. Rajpati being wide of Ram Milan. The petitioner filed an application under section 12 of the Act on 25.9.1980 for mutation of his name, claiming himself as the son of Ram Milan. Smt. Rajpati died during pendency of the aforesaid cases. Baburam filed an application for substituting him as an heir of Smt. Rajpati, on the basis of a registered will dated 4.4.1984, executed by her in his favour. In order to prove his case, Baburam filed registered will dated 4.4.1984, certified copy of the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 21.10.1981, passed in a proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C., certified copy of the F.I.R. dated 22.12.1980, certified copy of Pariwar Register dated 10.6.1978, Voter List of the year 1975, certified copy of Pariwar Register dated 10.6.1987 of Girdhari, Pass-book relating to agriculture and receipts of sugar mills, Resident Certificate of Ram Chandra son of Girdhari and examined witnesses Hari Lal, Ram Sewak and Baburam and also summoned Adya Prasad Pandey, Panchayat Secretary, along with original Pariwar Register and his statement was also recorded. The petitioner filed certified copy of School Leaving Certificate, Pariwar Register of village Jhugiya of Mangroo, character certificate, Pariwar Register dated 20.5.1963, Pariwar Register of house No. 109/2 and 109/3 and Ration Card and examined Rama Shankar, Salikram, Ram Tirath, Udaybhan, Rajai, Kedar and Bekaru. The petitioner filed certified copy of School Leaving Certificate, Pariwar Register of village Jhugiya of Mangroo, character certificate, Pariwar Register dated 20.5.1963, Pariwar Register of house No. 109/2 and 109/3 and Ration Card and examined Rama Shankar, Salikram, Ram Tirath, Udaybhan, Rajai, Kedar and Bekaru. Bhagauti also died and was substituted by Durga Prasad (respondent-4), who after order of Consolidation Officer did not file any appeal. Reshma daughter of Ram Milan was also substituted as an heir of Smt. Rajpati but she is also not contesting. 3. The Consolidation Officer, Harraiya, Basti, by order dated 7.1.2009, held that name of Bekaru was not mentioned in the Pariwar Register relating to the family of Ram Milan prior to 12.9.2007. In the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C., Smt. Rajpati was found as the widow of Ram Milan and Bekaru as the son of Girdhari. By the order of Assistant Development Officer dated 12.9.2007, name of Bekaru was mentioned in Pariwar Register relating to the family of Ram Milan as his son. Subsequently, father's name of Bekaru has been mentioned as Ram Milan in Photo Identity Card of Election Commission, Ration Card. Due execution of will set up by Durga Prasad was not proved. As at the time of the death of Ram Milan, Bekaru, being his son inherited the land in dispute as such on the basis of will executed by Smt. Rajpati, Baburam cannot claim any title over the land in dispute. On these findings. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 7.1.2009, directed for mutation of the name of Bekaru over the land in dispute. 4. Baburam filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 819) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Basti, who by order dated 20.11.2009, held that from Voter List and Pariwar Register, it was proved that Smt. Rajpati was wife of Ram Milan. School Leaving Certificate filed by Bekaru is a forged document. In the Photo Identity Card of Election Commission, age of Bekaru has been mentioned as 28 years as such his birth comes in the year 1978 while Ram Milan had already died in the year 1978. Pariwar Register has been corrected during pendency of the litigation. In the proceedings under section 145Cr.P.C Sub-Divisional Magistrate found Bekaru as the son of Girdhari. Due execution of the will by Smt. Rajpati in favour of Baburam has been proved by the witnesses. Pariwar Register has been corrected during pendency of the litigation. In the proceedings under section 145Cr.P.C Sub-Divisional Magistrate found Bekaru as the son of Girdhari. Due execution of the will by Smt. Rajpati in favour of Baburam has been proved by the witnesses. On these findings, the appeal was allowed and order of Consolidation Officer dated 7.1.2009 was set aside and name of Baburam was directed to be recorded on the disputed land. 5. Bekaru filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 347) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti, who by order dated 8.8.2013 held that from the Pariwar Register of 1978, Voter List, Pass book of District Co-operative Bank, receipts of sugarcane, it was proved that Smt. Rajpati was widow of Ram Milan. From the statement of Adya Prasad Pandey, Panchayat Secretary, it was proved that in the family of Ram Milan, name of Bekaru has not been mentioned prior to 12.9.2007. In house No. 109/2, name of head of the family was mentioned as Girdhari and the names of Bhagwandei wife of Girdhari, Ram Chander son of Girdhari, Nirmala Devi wife of Ram Chander, Ram Grish, Amresh and Kamlesh sons of Ram Chander have been mentioned. Assistant Development Officer corrected these entries by order dated 12.9.2007 and deleted the names of Ram Chander, son of Girdhari, Nirmala Devi wife of Ram Chander, Ram Grish, Amresh and Kamlesh from the house of Girdhari and added these names in the Pariwar Register of Ram Milan. Other names were same except in place of name of Ram Chander, Bekaru has been mentioned, which shows that Ram Chander is now impersonating himself as Bekaru. On these findings, the revision was dismissed, by order dated 8.8.2013. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the Family Register, certified copy of which was obtained on 20.5.1963, in the family of Ram Milan, names of Karchhuliya (mother), Kailashpati (wife), Reshma (daughter) and Bekaru (son) of Ram Milan have been mentioned. This certified copy of the Pariwar Register was the oldest document from which it was proved that the petitioner was son of Ram Milan. On the death of Ram Milan in the year 1978, the petitioner, being son of Ram Milan, inherited his properties under section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. This certified copy of the Pariwar Register was the oldest document from which it was proved that the petitioner was son of Ram Milan. On the death of Ram Milan in the year 1978, the petitioner, being son of Ram Milan, inherited his properties under section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Although in this document, the name of Smt. Rajpati was not mentioned as wife of Ram Milan but she has illegally mentioned herself as the widow of Ram Milan in the will dated 4.4.1984. From the Pariwar Register of Mangroo of village Jhungiya, it was proved that Smt. Rajpati was wife of Palai. Even if, it is taken that Smt. Rajpati was widow of Ram Milan, the property in dispute was inherited by the petitioner under the law and she did not get any title over it. On the basis of will executed by Smt. Rajpati, Baburam cannot claim the land in dispute. Entries in Pariwar Register has been corrected by the order of Assistant Development Officer, who was a competent authority. This order has become final and consolidation authorities were not competent to ignore it. Certified copy of School Leaving Certificate has been illegally ignored. The petitioner examined his relations as the witness to prove that Bekaru was son of Ram Milan. Baburam could not adduce any witness of the relation or family member to prove his case. The findings recorded in the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. are not relevant in the title proceeding. Respondents-1 and 2 illegally placed reliance upon it. Orders of respondents-1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. So far as the certified copy of Kutumb Register dated 20.5.1963 (filed as Annexure-10) to the writ petition) is concerned, in this Kutumb Register, total five members in the family of Ram Milan have been shown. Although birth of Bekaru was shown of 1962 and Reshma was shown as 1963 but name of Reshma was mentioned at serial No. 3 and Bekaru was mentioned at serial No. 5. Baburam took the case, that this certified copy is a forged document. Although birth of Bekaru was shown of 1962 and Reshma was shown as 1963 but name of Reshma was mentioned at serial No. 3 and Bekaru was mentioned at serial No. 5. Baburam took the case, that this certified copy is a forged document. In order to verify the correctness of this Kutumb Register, Consolidation Officer examined Adya Prasad Pandey, Panchayat Secretary, who produced the original register and proved that in the family of Ram Milan, name of Bekaru had not been mentioned prior to 12.9.2007. The Consolidation Officer also in his order found that the name of Bekaru has not been mentioned in the family of Ram Milan prior to 12.9.2007. Thus this document has been found to be forged by all the consolidation authorities and no reliance can be placed on it. 8. Various documents filed by the petitioner give his different date of birth. In the Kutumb Register dated 20.5.1963, his date of birth was shown as 1962, in the School Leaving Certificate, date of birth has been mentioned as 25.1.1963 and according to Photo Identity Card of Election Commission, his date of birth comes to 1978. In case the petitioner was born in the year 1962 and attained age of majority in the year 1980, then there could be no reason for his name not mentioned in the Voter List after 1980. In it only when he secured order of Assistant Development Officer dated 12.9.2007, then for the first time his name was came in the Voter list. In the School Leaving Certificate date of admission has been shown as 19.1.1971 and school was left on 30.4.1971. Apparently these documents were fabricated documents and have been rightly disbelieved by the consolidation authorities. 9. So far as the order of Assistant Development Officer dated 12.9.2007 is concerned, Deputy Director of Consolidation found that in house No. 109/2, name of head of the family was mentioned as Girdhari and the names of Bhagwandei wife of Girdhari, Ram Chander son of Girdhari, Nirmala Devi wife of Ram Chander, Ram Grish, Amresh and Kamlesh sons of Ram Chander have been mentioned. Assistant Development Officer corrected these entries by order dated 12.9.2007 and deleted the names of Ram Chander, son of Girdhari, Nirmala Devi wife of Ram Chander, Ram Grish, Amresh and Kamlesh from the house of Girdhari and added these names in the Pariwar Register of Ram Milan. Assistant Development Officer corrected these entries by order dated 12.9.2007 and deleted the names of Ram Chander, son of Girdhari, Nirmala Devi wife of Ram Chander, Ram Grish, Amresh and Kamlesh from the house of Girdhari and added these names in the Pariwar Register of Ram Milan. Other names were same except in place of name of Ram Chander, Bekaru has been mentioned, which shows that Ram Chander is now impersonating himself as Bekaru. The conduct of his father in this respect is also relevant, who earlier claimed that Ram Milan left behind him no son and his brothers were his heirs. When they set up Bekaru, they left the case and not contested the claim of Bekaru. This findings of fact could not be challenged by the petitioner except to say that it was the order of competent authority. This order has been passed in summary proceedings during pendency of the litigation and Deputy Director of Consolidation was competent to examine its correctness. Thus from these facts it is clear that the petitioner based his title on the fabricated documents, which were rightly disbelieved by the consolidation authorities. 10. In respect of Smt. Rajpati, the consolidation authorities found that from the Pariwar Register of 3978, Voter List of 1975, Pass book of District Co-operative Bank, receipts of sugarcane and order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed in the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C., it was proved that Smt. Rajpati was widow of Ram Milan and after his death she was in possession of the land in dispute. Due execution of the will executed by Smt. Rajpati in favour of Baburam was proved. Findings recorded by the consolidation authorities that the petitioner was not the son of Ram Milan and Smt. Rajpati being widow of Ram Milan, inherited the land in dispute after his death and after her death, Baburam inherited it on the basis of will of Smt. Rajpati do not suffer from any illegality. In view of the (sic) sion the writ petition has (sic) dismissed.